Software factory readiness review

ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium for determining if a software factory is ready to take on a software project is presented. In a preferred embodiment, the computer-implemented method includes the steps of: determining if an infrastructure for a software factory has been procured; determining if operational software needed to assemble work packets in an assembly line in the software factory has been installed; determining if a workflow event model for an assembly line in the software factory has been configured; determining if workload in the assembly line has been balanced; determining if communication channels between the software factory and a customer&#39;s computer system have been defined and cleared for data transmission; and in response to determining that any element described above has been determined not to have occurred, prohibiting an induction of a software project into the software factory.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 as acontinuation application to application Ser. No. 11/735,152, entitled“SOFTWARE FACTORY READINESS REVIEW,” filed on Apr. 13, 2007, which ishereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Technical Field

The present disclosure relates in general to the field of computers, andmore particularly to the use of computer software. Still moreparticularly, the present disclosure relates to the creation ofsemi-custom software through the use of a standardized software factory.

2. Description of the Related Art

Software can be classified as being in one of two main categories:“off-the-shelf” and “custom.” As the name implies, off-the-shelfsoftware is pre-developed software that has little, if any flexibility.Thus, the customer must tailor her activities to conform to thesoftware. While such software is initially inexpensive compared tocustom software, long-term costs (in time and money for softwareimplementation, training, business process alterations, etc.) can beonerous in an enterprise environment. Custom software, as the nameimplies, is custom built software that is tailored to existing orplanned activities of the customer.

Today, software development, and particularly custom softwaredevelopment, is perceived as more of an art than a science. This isparticularly true for custom software that is being created by athird-party for an enterprise customer. That is, a developer must relyon her experience, training, intuition and communication skills tocreate software is both unique and reliable. This often leads tosoftware of varying degrees of reliability, usefulness and value to thecustomer.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

To address the issues described above, the present disclosure provides acomputer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium fordetermining if a software factory is ready to take on a softwareproject. In a preferred embodiment, the computer-implemented methodincludes the steps of: determining if an infrastructure for a softwarefactory has been procured; determining if operational software needed toassemble work packets in an assembly line in the software factory hasbeen installed; determining if a workflow event model for an assemblyline in the software factory has been configured; determining ifworkload in the assembly line has been balanced; determining ifcommunication channels between the software factory and a customer'scomputer system have been defined and cleared for data transmission; andin response to determining that any element described above has beendetermined not to have occurred, prohibiting an induction of a softwareproject into the software factory.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The novel features believed characteristic of the invention are setforth in the appended claims. The invention itself, however, as well asa preferred mode of use, further purposes and advantages thereof, willbest be understood by reference to the following detailed description ofan illustrative embodiment when read in conjunction with theaccompanying drawings, where:

FIG. 1 is an overview of a novel software factory;

FIG. 2 is a flow-chart of steps taken to create custom software throughthe use of work packets in a software factory;

FIG. 3 presents an overview of the life cycle of work packets;

FIG. 4 presents an overview of an environment in which work packets aredefined and assembled;

FIG. 5 is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to define and assemblework packets;

FIGS. 6 a-b illustrate an exemplary header in a work packet;

FIG. 7 is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to archive a workpacket;

FIG. 8 is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to rapidly on-board asoftware factory;

FIG. 9 is a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken to induct a project;

FIG. 10 a shows a relationship between pre-qualifying questions andchecklists used to induct a project;

FIG. 10 b-e depict a Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis andPredictive Forecasting Model that is used to dynamically generatechecklists used to aid in the creation of work packets in the softwarefactory;

FIG. 11 shows an environment in which software factory analytics anddashboards are implemented

FIG. 12 is a flow-chart showing exemplary steps taken to monitor asoftware factory;

FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary computer in which the present inventionmay be utilized;

FIGS. 14A-B are flow-charts showing steps taken to deploy softwarecapable of executing the steps described in FIGS. 1-12; and

FIGS. 15A-B are flow-charts showing steps taken to execute the stepsshown in FIGS. 1-12 using an on-demand service provider.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Presented herein is a software factory, which includes a collection ofbusiness and Information Technology (IT) governance models, operationalmodels, delivery methods, metrics, environment and tools bundledtogether to improve the quality of delivered software systems, controlcost overruns, and effect timely delivery of such systems. The softwarefactory described herein offers a practical solution to developingsoftware systems using multiple sites that are geographicallydistributed. The issues of varying timezones and the hand-over betweenvarious teams residing in such timezones are handled by exchanging workpackets. A work packet is a self-contained work unit that is composed ofprocesses, roles, activities, applications and the necessary inputparameters that allow a team to conduct a development activity in aformalized manner with visibility to progress of their effort affordedto the requesting teams.

The novel software factory described herein is a uniquely engineeredscalable efficiency model construct that transforms a traditionalsoftware development art form into a repeatable scientific managedengineered streamline information supply chain. The software factoryincorporates applied system and industrial engineering quality assuredefficiencies that provide for the waste eliminating, highly optimizedperformed instrumentation, measured monitoring and risk mitigatedmanagement of software development.

Software Factory Overview

With reference now to the figures, and in particular to FIG. 1, anoverview of a preferred embodiment of a software factory 100 ispresented. As depicted, the software factory 100 is a service thatinteracts with both enterprise customers (i.e., client customers) 102 aswell as enterprise partners (i.e., third party vendors) 104. The primaryhuman interface with the enterprise customers 102 is through a ClientBusiness Governance Board (CBGB) 106. CBGB 106 represents clientstakeholders and client business sponsors that fund a project of thesoftware factory 100. CBGB 106 can be an internal or external client.That is, the same enterprise (i.e., internal client) may include bothCBGB 106 and software factory 100, or a first enterprise (i.e., externalclient) may have CBGB 106 while a second enterprise has the softwarefactory 100. As described in greater detail below, a project proposaldefinition is then run through a software factory induction process in aSoftware Factory Governance Board (SFGB) 108 and Software FactoryOperations (SFO) 110, where the project proposal definition isevaluated, qualified, scored and categorized. The project proposaldefinition is then subject to a System Engineering ConceptualRequirements Review by the SFGB 108. Based on the outcome of the reviewby the SFGB 108, a decision is made to accept the project proposaldefinition or to send it back to the CBGB 106 for remediation andresubmission through the Software Factory Induction Process.

Thus, Software Factory Governance, which includes SFGB 108 and SFO 110,provides the guidance, constraints, and underlying enforcement of allthe factory policies and procedures, in support of their governingprinciples in support of the strategic objects of the Software Factory100. Software Factory governance consists of factory business, IT andoperations governance. The principles, policies and procedures of thesemodels are carried out by two governing bodies—the Business GovernanceBoard and the IT Governance Board (both part of SFGB 108), and anenforcement body—the Software Factory Operations 110.

Thus, Software Factory Governance is responsible for:

Business and IT strategic planning;

Assuring that Business and IT strategies are aligned;

Setting Goals;

Monitoring those goals;

Detecting problems in Achieving those goals;

Analyzing Problems;

Identifying Reasons;

Taking Action;

Providing Feedback; and

Re-Strategizing (Continue process improvement).

As soon as a project is deemed worthy to proceed, the job of creatingthe custom software is sent to a Design Center 112, where the project isbroken into major functional areas, including those handled by aRequirements Analysis Team 114 and an Architectural Team 116.

The Requirements Analysis Team 114 handles the Requirement Managementside of the Design Center 112, and is responsible for collecting thebusiness requirements from the lines of business and populating theserequirements into the tools. Analysis of business requirements is alsocarried out in order to derive associated IT requirements. Somerequirements (e.g. system requirements) may have a contractualconstraint to use a certain infrastructure. Requirements are analyzedand used in the bases for business modeling. These requirements andrepresentative business (contextual, event and process models) are thenverified with and signed off from project stakeholders. Requirements arethen base-lined and managed within release and version control.

The Architectural Side of the Design Center 112 is handled by theArchitecture Team 116, which takes the output of therequirement/analysis/management side of the design center, and usesarchitectural decision factors (functional requirements, non-functionalrequirements, available technology, and constraints), to model a designwith appropriate example representation into detail designspecification, that is bundled with other pertinent factors into a workpacket for assembly lines to execute.

Work Packets 118 are reusable, self-contained, discrete units ofsoftware code that constitute a contractual agreement that governs therelationship among Design Center 112, Software Factory Governance Board108, Software Factory Operations 110, and Assembly Line 120. That is,each work packet 118 includes governance policies and procedures (e.g.,including instructions for how work reports are generated andcommunicated to the client), standards (e.g., protocol for the workpacket 118), reused assets (e.g., reusable blocks of code, including therequirements, instructions and/or links/pointers associated with thosereusable blocks of code), work packet instructions (e.g., instructionsfor executing the work packet 118), integration strategy (e.g., how tointegrate the work packet 118 into a client's security system), schedule(e.g., when deliverables are delivered to the client), exit criteria(e.g., a checklist for returning the work packet 118 and/or deliverablesto the software factory 100), and Input/Output (I/O) work products(e.g., artifact checklist templates for I/O routines).

Assembly Line(s) 120 (Job Shop(s); Execution Units) receive and executethe work packets 118, which are specified by the Design Center 112, tocreate a customized deliverable 122. As shown in exemplary manner, theassembly line 120 puts the work packets 118 into a selected low-leveldesign to generate a deliverable (executable product). While assemblyline 120 can be a manual operation in which a coding person assemblesand tests work packets, in another embodiment this process is automatedusing software that recognizes project types, and automaticallyassembles work packets needed for a recognized project type.

Various tests can be performed in the assembly line 120, includingcode/unit tests, integration test, system test, system integration test,and performance test. “Code/unit test” tests the deliverable forstand-alone bugs. “Integration test” tests the deliverable forcompatibility with the client's system. “System test” checks theclient's system to ensure that it is operating properly. “Systemintegration test” tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable isintegrated into the client's system. “Performance test” tests thedeliverable as it is executing in the client's system. Note that if thedeliverable is being executed on a service provider's system, then alltests described are obviously performed on the service provider's systemrather than the client's system.

A User Acceptance Test Team 124 includes a client stakeholder that ischarged with the responsibility of approving acceptance of deliverable122.

Software factory 100 may utilize enterprise partners 104 to providehuman, hardware or software support in the generation, delivery and/orsupport of deliverables 122. Such third party contractors are viewed asa resource extension of the software factory 100, and are governed underthe same guidelines described above.

If an enterprise partner 104 is involved in the generation of workpackets 118 and/or deliverables 122, an interface between the softwarefactory 100 and the enterprise partner 104 may be provided by a serviceprovider's interface team 126 and/or a product vendor's interface team128. Service provided by an enterprise partner 104 may be a constraintthat is part of contractual agreement with a client to providespecialized services. An example of such a constraint is a requiredintegrated information service component that is referenced in theintegration design portion of the work packet 118 that is sent toassemble line 120. Again, note that third party service providers use astandard integration strategy that is defined by the software factory100, and, as such, are subject to and obligated to operate undersoftware factory governance.

Product vendor's interface team 128 provides an interface with a ProductVendor, which is an enterprise partner 104 that provides softwarefactory 100 with supported products that maybe used within a softwarefactory solution. Product Vendors are also responsible for providingproduct support and maintaining vendor's relationships, which aremanaged under the software factory's governance guidelines.

Support Team 130 includes both Level 2 (L2) support and Level 1 (L1)support.

L2 Support is provided primarily by Software Engineers, who provideproblem support of Software Factory produced delivered code forcustomers. That is, if a deliverable 122 doesn't run as designed, thenthe software engineers will troubleshoot the problem until it is fixed.These software engineers deliver technical assistance to SoftwareFactory customers with information, tools, and fixes to prevent knownsoftware (and possibly hardware) problems, and provide timely responsesto customer inquiries and resolutions to customer problems.

L1 support is primarily provided by an L1 Help Desk (Call Center). L1Help Desk support can be done via self-service voice recognition andvoice response, or by text chat to an automated smart attendant, or acall can be directed to a Customer Service Representative (CSR).Customer Service Representatives in this role provide first line of helpproblem support of Software Factory produced deliverables. Such helpincludes user instruction of known factory solution procedures. For anyrelated customers issues that can not be resolved through L1, the L1Help Desk will provide preliminary problem identification, createtrouble ticket entry into trouble tracking system, which then triggers aworkflow event to dynamically route the problem issue to available andan appropriate L2 support group queue.

With reference now to FIG. 2, a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken tocreate custom software through the use of a software factory ispresented. After initiator block 202, which may be a creation of acontract between an enterprise client and a software factory service,input, from a Client Business Governance Board, is received at asoftware factory (block 204). This input is a detailed description ofthe custom software needs of the enterprise client. While such input isusually prepared and presented by human management of the enterpriseclient, alternatively this input may be the creation of a UnifiedModeling Language (UML) based description of the needed software. Basedon the client's input, a project software proposal definition is createdby the Software Factory Governance Board of the software factory (block206). This project software proposal definition is sent to thescheduling/dispatching department of the Software Factory Operations,which creates a software project.

The software project is then inducted (block 208). As will be describedin more detail below, the project induction provides an initialintroduction of the project to the software factory. Through the use ofvarious parameters, including those found in records of other projects,checklists, et al., the project is initially evaluated. This evaluationincludes determining if the software factory has the capacity,resources, bandwidth, etc. needed for the project. If so, then adetermination is made as to whether the project is qualified foracceptance by the software factory. Such qualification includes, but isnot limited to, determining if the project falls within the guidelinesset by a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the client enterprise andthe software factory, whether the project conforms to legal guidelinessuch as Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. Based on these and other criteria, theproject is scored for feasibility, profitability, and desirability forimplementation. If the induction process concludes that the projectshould proceed, then it is categorized into a particular type of project(e.g., payroll, inventory control, database management, marketing, etal.).

If the induction process does not pass (query block 210), indicatingthat the project should not proceed, then the project is returned to theClient Business Governance Board for additional discussions between theClient Business Governance Board and the software factory, in order toinduct a revised project (i.e., reinduct the software project). However,if the induction process passes, then the software project is parsedinto major functional areas (block 212). That is, the project is dividedup (“broken apart”) in order to establish subunits that can later beintegrated into a single custom software (“deliverable”).

Work packets are then obtained for all of the functional areas of thesoftware project (block 214). These work packets are reusable componentswhich are described in detail below. The work packets are then stitchedtogether (block 216) on an assembly line to create deliverable customsoftware that meets the criteria for the software project that has beenestablished in the earlier steps. The custom software is then tested inthe software factory (block 218). Once testing is completed, the customsoftware is delivered (block 220) to the client customer, who receiveson-going support from the support team (block 222). The flow-chart endsat terminator block 224.

While the process has been described for the creation of customsoftware, the same process is used by a software factory for otheractivities, including creating a service for a customer, creatingstandardized software, etc. Thus, the software factory uses work packetsto blend software (including reusable artifacts), protocols (e.g., howsoftware will be transmitted, how individuals will be contacted, etc.),governance requirements (e.g., service level agreements that describehow much a service will cost) and operating environments (hardware andsoftware, including operating systems, integrated environments such asSAP™, Rational™, etc.) into a single integrated product, which can thenbe used in a stand-alone manner or can be fed into anothersystem/product.

Note that software factory 100 is virtual. That is, the differentcomponents (e.g., software factory governance board 108, softwarefactory operations 110, design center 112, assembly line 120) may belocated in different locations, and may operate independently under thecontrol of information found in work packets 118. In a preferredembodiment, each of the different components of the software factory 100publishes a set of services that the component can provide and a set ofrequirements for using these services. These services are functions thatare well defined and made visible for outside entities to call.

For example, assume that assembly line 120 publishes a service that itcan assemble only work packets that include code and protocol thatutilize IBM's Rational™ software development platform. Thus, theassembly line 120 has published its service (set of services includes“assembling work packets”) and the required protocol (set ofrequirements includes “utilize IBM's Rational™ software developmentplatform”) to the design center 112, which must decide if it wants (oris able) to utilize that particular assembly line 120. If not, thenanother assembly line from another software factory may be called uponby the design center 112. Behind each offered service are the actualprocesses that a component performs. These processes are steps taken bythe service. Each step is performed by a section of software, or may beperformed by an individual who has been assigned the task of performingthis step. Each step utilizes leveraged tools, including the workpackets 118 described herein. These work packets 118 then implement theprocess.

By utilizing published interfaces between the different components ofthe software factory 100, then different components from differentsoftware factories can be interchanged according to the capabilityoffered by and protocol used by each component. This enables a “buildingblock” architecture to be implemented through the use of differentcomponents from different software factories.

Life Cycle of a Work Packet

There are five phases in the life cycle of a work packet, which areshown in FIG. 3. These five phases are 1) Defining (block 302); 2)Assembling (block 304); Archiving (block 306); Distributing (block 308);and Pulling for execution (block 310). As indicated by the top dashedline coming out of asset repository 312, this life cycle may berecursive. That is, in one embodiment, work packets are modified anupgraded in a recursive manner, which includes the steps shown in FIG.3. Once a work packet is assembled and archived, it is stored in anasset repository 312, whence the work packet may be accessed andutilized by an asset manager 314 for assembly into a deliverable by anassembly line 316. Note that the assembly line 316 can also send, to theasset manager 314, a message 318 that requests a particular work packet320, which can be pulled (block 310) into the asset repository 312 bythe asset manager 314. This pulling step (block 310), is performedthrough intelligent routing distribution (block 308) to the assetrepository 312 and assembly line 316. The configuration of the routingdistribution of the work packet 320 is managed by the asset manager 314,which is software that indexes, stores and retrieve assets created andused with the software factory.

Work Packet Components

A work packet is a self-contained work unit that comprises processes,roles, activities (parts of the job), applications, and necessary inputparameters that allow a team to conduct a development activity in aformalized manner, with visibility to progress of their effort affordedto requesting teams. A work packet is NOT a deliverable softwareproduct, but rather is a component of a deliverable software product.That is, a work packet is processed (integrated into a system, tested,etc.) to create one or more deliverables. Deliverables, which werecreated from one or more work packets, are then combined into a customsoftware, such as an application, service or system.

In a preferred embodiment, a work packet is composed of the followingeight components.

Governance Policies and Procedures—these policies and procedures includeprotocol definitions derived from a project plan. That is, a projectplan for a particular custom software describes how work packets arecalled, as well as how work packets report back to the calling plan.

Standards—this component describes details about how work packets areimplemented into a deliverable in a standardized manner. Examples ofsuch standards are naming conventions, formatting protocol, etc.

Reused Assets—this component includes actual code, or at least pointersto code, that is archived for reuse by different assembled deliverables.

Work Packet Instructions—this component describes detailed instructionsregarding how a work packet is actually executed. That is, work packetinstructions document what work packets need to be built, and how tobuild them. These instructions include a description of the requirementsthat need to be met, including design protocols, code formats, and testparameters.

Integration Strategy—this component describes how a set of work packets,as well as deliverables developed from a set of work packets, are ableto be integrated into a client's system. This component includesinstructions regarding what processes must be taken by the client'ssystem to be prepared to run the deliverable, as well as securityprotocols that must be followed by the deliverable. The component mayalso include a description of how one deliverable will interact withother applications that are resident to the client's computer system.

Scheduling—this component describes when a set of work packets are to besent to an assembly line, plus instructions on monitoring the progressand status of the creation of the work packet.

Exit Criteria—this component includes instructions (e.g., through theuse of a checklist) for deploying a deliverable to the client's system.That is, this component is the quality criteria that the deliverablemust meet before it can be considered completed and acceptable for aproject.

Input Work Products—this component includes Input/Output (I/O) templatesthat are used to describe specific work products that are needed toexecute the activities of the work packet (in the assembly line) tobuild the deliverable.

Defining a Work Packet

The process of defining a work packet is called a “work packetdefinition process.” This process combines critical references fromgovernance, factory operations (e.g., factory management, projectmanagement), business criteria, and design (including test) artifacts.Structured templates enable governance, design center, and factoryoperations to define the referenced artifacts by filling incorresponding functional domain templates, thus defining the contents ofthe work packet. Thus, a work packet includes not only reusable softwarecode, but also includes governance and operation instructions. Forexample, a work packet may include directions that describe a sequenceof steps to be taken in a project; which data is to be used in theproject; which individuals/departments/job descriptions are to performeach step in the project; how assigned individuals/departments are to benotified of their duties and what steps/data are to be taken and used,et al. Thus, each work packet includes traceability regarding the statusof a job, as well as code/data/individuals to be used in the executionof a project.

Thus, work packets are created from unique references to governance,factory operations (factory mgt, project mgt), business, and design(including test) artifacts. The packet definition process providesstructure templates that enable governance, design center, and factoryoperations to define referenced artifacts (newly defined artifactidentifiers or any reusable part of existing work packet definitions),by filling in corresponding functional domain (e.g., eXtensible MarkupLanguage—XML) templates. What can be defined may be controlled by aDocument Type Definition (DTD). The DTD states what tags and attributesare used to describe content in the deliverable, including where eachXML tag is allowed and which XML tags can appear within the deliverable.XML tag values are defined and applied to a newly defined XML templatefor each functional area of a design center. These XML templates arethen merged into one hierarchical structure when later assembled intofinalized work packets.

With reference now to FIG. 4, an overview of the environment in which apacket definition process 402 occurs is presented. The packet definitionprocess 402 calls artifacts 404, metrics 406, and a template 408 todefine a work packet. The artifacts may be one or more of: governanceartifacts 410 (intellectual assets produced in the software factory bythe Software Factory Governance Board 108 described in FIG. 1); businesscontextual artifacts 412 (intellectual assets produced in the softwarefactory by business analysts in the requirement analysis team 114described in FIG. 1); architectural artifacts 414 (intellectual assetsproduced by the architecture team 116 described in FIG. 1); testartifacts 416 (intellectual assets produced by test architects in thearchitecture team 116 shown in FIG. 1); and project artifacts 418(intellectual assets produced in the software factory by systemengineers in the design center 112 shown in FIG. 1).

The metrics 406 may be one or more of: governance metrics 420(measurable governance indicators, such as business plans); factorymetrics 422 (measurable indicators that describe the capabilities of thesoftware factory, including assembly line capacity); and system metrics424 (measurable indicators that describe the capabilities of theclient's computer system on which deliverables are to be run).

Based on a template 408 for a particular deliverable, artifacts 404 andmetrics 406 are used by a packet assembly process 426 to assemble one ormore work packets.

Assembling a Work Packet

Template 408, shown in FIG. 4, describes how a work packet is to beassembled. The template 408 includes metadata references to keyartifacts 404 and metrics 406, which are merged into a formal workpacket definition as described above. The work packet is then assembledin a standardized hierarchical way and packaged within a factory messageenvelope that contains a header and body.

With reference now to FIG. 5, a high-level flow-chart of steps taken todefine and assemble work packets is presented. After initiator block 502(which may be an order by the Requirements Analysis Team 114 to theArchitecture Team 116, shown in FIG. 1, to create a designcenter-defined work packet), the requisite packet definitions arecreated for work packets that are to be used in deliverables (block504). First, a template, which preferably is a reusable that has beenused in the past to create the type of work packet needed, is called(block 506). Based on that called template, the needed artifacts (block508) and metrics (block 510) are called. Using the template as a guide,the called artifacts and metrics are assembled in the requisite workpackets (block 512), and the process ends.

Archiving Work Packets

As stated above, work packets are fungible (easily interchangeable andreusable for different deliverables). As such, they are stored in anarchival manner. In order to retrieve them efficiently, however, theyare categorized, classified, and named. For example, consider the header600 shown in FIG. 6 a. Header 600 is associated with a specific workpacket 602 that includes software code 604. The name of the work packetis created by the architect who originally created the work packet 602.Preferably, the name is descriptive of the function of the work packet602, such as “Security work packet”, which can be used in the assemblyof a security deliverable. The header may describe whether the workpacket is proprietary for a particular client, such that the work packetmay be reused only for that client. A description (coded, flagged, etc.)for what the work packet is used for may be included, as well as thenames of particular components (such as the eight components describedabove).

An alternate header for a work packet is shown in FIG. 6 b as header606. Note that the header 606 for every work packet contains the firstfour values shown (“Work Packet ID,” “Work Packet Description,” “WorkPacket Type,” and “Parent Packet ID”). That is, each work packet has aunique identification number (“Work Packet ID”), a short description ofthe work packet (“Work Packet Description”), a description of the typeof work packet (“Work Packet Type,” such as “security,” “spreadsheet,”etc.), and the identifier (“Parent Packet ID”) of any parent object fromwhich the work packet has inheritance.

Exemplary pseudocode for defining the work packet is:

[Work Packet Definition - Stored in Asset Repository] <Factory EnvelopeClientCode = 999, Version =1.0 , FactoryInstanceID = 012,ProjectID=1001> <Header> ..... ..... ..... ...... </Header> <Body><Asset ID> <Asset Type> <Project Type> <Work Packet ID =####,CreationDate =011007, Source = DC100> <Work Packet Description><Work Packet Type [1-90]> <Parent Packet ID = ####> <Governance><Governance_Artifact ID = #### Type = 1 [Policy,Procedure,]><Governance_Artifact ID .....> <Governance_Artifact ID ....><Governance_Artifact ID ....> </Governance> <Business><Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2 [1=Success Factor, 2=Use Case,3=Business Context, 4= NFR, etc> <Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2><Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2> <Business_Artifact ID = ### Type =2> </Business> <Architecture Artifact ID Type = 3 [ 1= Information,2=Data, 3=Application,4=Integration, 5=Security, 6=System, 7=Test,etc.]> <Architecture_Artifiact ID > <Architecture_Artifiact ID ><Architecture_Artifiact ID > <Architecture_Artifiact ID ><Architecture_Artifiact ID> <Architecture_Artifiact ID><Architecture_Artifiact ID> <Architecture_Artifact ID> </Architecture><Project ID = xxx> <Project Artifact ID = ####> <Project Artifacts><Project Metrics> </Project> </Work Packet> </Body> </Factory Envelope>

With reference now to FIG. 7, a high-level flow chart of steps taken toarchive a work packet is presented. After initiator block 702, anarchitect defines header components for an asset (e.g. a work packet)header (block 704). Note that these header components allow an AssetRepository to perform a metadata categorization search of the assets.These header components may be any that the programmer wishes to use,including those shown in exemplary manner in FIGS. 6 a-b. After theheader components are defined, the architect populates them withdescriptors (block 706). A system manager or software then archives(stores) the work packet, including the header (block 708). At a latertime, a program or programmer can retrieve the work packet by specifyinginformation in the header (block 710). For example, if the program orprogrammer needs a work packet that is of a “Security” type that follows“Standard 100”, then “Work packet one” can be retrieved at “Address 1”,as depicted in FIG. 6 a. Note, however, that this work packet cannot beutilized unless it is to be used in the construction of a deliverablefor the client “Toyota.” The process ends at terminator block 712.

Software Factory Readiness Review

Before a software factory can receive an order from a client to creatework packets and their resultant deliverables/applications, adetermination should be made to determine whether the factory is readyto take on project work. This determination can be made through the useof a scorecard, which provides a maturity assessment of the factory. Anexemplary scorecard is as follows:

-   -   1. Factory Resource Plan (Business and IT Environment) completed    -   2. Infrastructure (Hardware, Network) procurement complete    -   3. Operational Software installed    -   4. Integrated Tools installed        -   a. Design Center            -   i. Requirement Management,            -   ii. Business Modeling            -   iii. Architectural Modeling            -   iv. Test Management            -   v. Configuration (Release) Management            -   vi. Change Management        -   b. Execution Units            -   i. IDE (Integrated Development Environment)    -   5. Automate information handled (Service Oriented Architecture        (SOA)—reusable model for Factory Installations)    -   6. Process, equipment and product data integrated and        statistically analyzed    -   7. Enterprise Service Bus installed        -   a. Common Services            -   i. Audit (DB)            -   ii. Business Transaction Monitoring            -   iii. Performance Monitoring            -   iv. System Monitoring            -   v. Message Translation/Transformation            -   vi. Analysis (Data Analytics)            -   vii. Packet Assembly            -   viii. Session Mgt            -   ix. Security Model Configuration            -   x. Process Server Configuration            -   xi. Communication Protocol Bridges        -   b. Resource Mgt        -   c. Asset Mgt        -   d. Portal Server        -   e. Factory Induction Server        -   f. Message Oriented Middleware            -   i. Hub            -   ii. Router (DB)            -   iii. Persistent and Durable Queues (Databases)        -   g. Service Activators (Shared Components)    -   8. Workflow Engine installed    -   9. Workflow Event Model configured    -   10. Problem-solving organization (internal factory operations        (infrastructure) maintenance developed    -   11. Operational Support (System, Open Communication Channel,        Defined and Enforced Process and Procedures) hosted    -   12. Project Management Plan in place    -   13. Project Scheduled    -   14. Factory Activity scheduled    -   15. On-boarding—Setup and configuration    -   16. Ongoing capacity planned    -   17. Execution Units (Assembly Line) Balanced    -   18. Human Resources Planned        -   a. Reduce the division of labor        -   b. Secure the requisite talent    -   19. Factory process implemented to make factory mistake-proof        (continued process improvement)    -   20. Introductions and assembly of new process technology managed    -   21. In-line assembly inspected (done via Reviews)    -   22. Factory induction process in place    -   23. Communication channels cleared and defined

In one embodiment of the present invention, all of these steps are takenbefore a project is taken on by the Software Factory Governance Board106 described above in FIG. 1. These steps ensure the health andcapacity of the software factory to create and assemble work packetsinto a client-ordered deliverable.

Software Factory on-Boarding

As indicated in Step 15 of the Factory Readiness Review process,software factory on-boarding is a rapid process that uses a series ofchecklist questionnaires to help with the rapid set-up and configurationof the software factory.

The software factory on-boarding process is an accelerator process modelthat enables the roll out configuration of uniquely defined softwarefactor instances. This is a learning process that leverages patternsused in prior on-boarding exercises. This evolution provides a pertinentseries of checklist questionnaires to qualify what is necessary for arapid set-up and confirmation of a factory instance to support aproject. Based on project type assessments, installed factory patternscan be leveraged to forecast what is necessary to set up a similarfactory operation.

Exemplary steps taken during a rapid software factory on-boarding are:

-   -   a. Auto-recipe (configuration) download        -   i. Populate Activities/Task into workflow        -   ii. Configure Message Router        -   iii. Configure (queues) communication channels per            governance model        -   iv. Set up logistics (assess, connectivity) internal            maintenance team support (location)        -   v. Fast ramp new production processes        -   vi. Configure Security model            -   1. User accounts            -   2. Roles and privileges                -   a. Network Access                -   b. OS File Directory                -   c. Database        -   vii. Configure Event Model        -   viii. Configure Infrastructure Servers        -   ix. Distribute Network Logistics    -   b. Resource Allocation (including human resources available)

Rapid on-boarding provides a calculated line and work cell balancingcapability view of leveraged resources, thus improving throughput ofassembly lines and work cells while reducing manpower requirements andcosts. The balancing module instantly calculates the optimum utilizationusing the fewest operators to achieve the result requested. Parameterscan be varied as often as needed to run “what-if” scenarios.

With reference now to FIG. 8, a high-level flow-chart of exemplary stepstaken for rapidly on-boarding a software factory is presented. Afterinitiator block 802, processes used by a software factory, includingchoke-points, are determined for a first project (block 804). Theseprocesses (and perhaps choke-points) lead to a checklist, whichdescribes the processes of the first process (block 806). Examples ofprocesses include, but are not limited to, the creation of work packets,testing work packets, etc. Examples of choke-points include, but are notlimited to, available computing power and memory in a service computerin which the software factory will run; available manpower; availablecommunication channels; etc. When a new work project comes in to thesoftware factory, the checklist can be used by the Software FactoryOperations 110 (shown in FIG. 1) to check processes/choke-points thatcan be anticipated by the new work project (block 808). That is, assumethat the first project and the new project are both projects forcreating a computer security program. By using a checklist thatidentifies similar mission-critical processes and/or choke-points whencreating a computer security program, a rapid determination can be madeby a programmer (or automated software) as to whether the softwarefactory is capable of handling the new work project. If the checklist iscomplete, indicating that all mission-critical resources are ready andno untoward choke-points are detected (block 810), then the softwarefactory is configured (block 812) as before (for the first project), andthe process ends (terminator block 814). However, if the resources arenot ready, then a “Not Ready” message is sent back to the SoftwareFactory Operations (such as to the Software Factory Governance Board)(block 816), thus ending the process (terminator block 814), unless theSoftware Factory Governance Board elects to retry configuring thesoftware factory (either using the rapid on-board process or the fullprocess described above).

Project Induction Process

Before a software project is accepted by the software factory, it shouldfirst be inducted. This induction process provides an analysis of theproposed software project. The analysis not only identifies whatprocesses and sub-processes will be needed to create the softwareproject, but will also identify potential risks to the software factoryand/or the client's computer system.

With reference now to the flow-chart shown in FIG. 9, a candidateproject 902 is submitted to software factory 100 (preferably to theSoftware Factory Governance Board 108 shown in FIG. 1) as a factoryproject proposal 904. The factory project proposal 904 then goes througha service definition process 906.

Service definition process 906 utilizes electronic questionnairechecklists 908 to help define a service definition template 910.Checklists 908 are a collection of drill down checklists that providequalifying questions related to the candidate project 902. The questionsasked in the checklists 908 are based on pre-qualifying questions. Thatis, as shown in FIG. 10 a, pre-qualification questions 1002 are broadquestions that relate to different types of projects. Based on theanswers submitted to questions in the pre-qualification questions 1002,a specific checklist from checklists 908 a-n is selected. Thus, assumethat pre-qualification questions 1002 include four questions: 1) Who isthe client? 2) Is the project security related? 3) Will the project runon the client's hardware? 4) When is the proposed project due? Based onanswers that are input by the client or the software factory governanceboard, one of the checklists 908 will be selected. That is, if theanswers for the four questions were 1) Toyota, 2) Yes, 3) Yes and 4) Sixmonths, then a checklist 908 b, which has questions that areheuristically known (from past projects) to contain the most relevantquestions for such a project is then automatically selected.

Returning to FIG. 9, the selected checklists 908 are then used togenerate the service definition template 910, which is essentially acompilation of checklists 908 that are selected in the manner describedin FIG. 10 a. Service definition template 910 is then sent to a ServiceAssessment Review (SAR) 912. SAR 912 is a weighted evaluation processthat, based on answers to qualifying, and preferably closed ended(yes/no), questions derived from the service definition template 910,evaluates the factory project proposal 904 for completeness andpreliminary risk assessment. SAR 912 provides an analysis of relevantareas of what is known (based on answers to questions found in theservice definition template 910) and what is unknown (could not bedetermined, either because of missing or unanswered questions in theservice definition template 910) about the candidate project 902. Thus,the outcome of SAR 912 is a qualification view (gap analysis) for thefactory project proposal 904, which provides raw data to a scoring andclassification process 914.

The scoring and classification process 914 is a scoring and tabulationof the raw data that is output from SAR 912. Based on the output fromSAR 912, the scoring and classification process 914 rates the factoryproject proposal 904 on project definition completeness, trace-abilityand risk exposure. If the service definition template 910 indicates thatthird parties will be used in the candidate project 902, then thescoring and classification process 914 will evaluate proposed thirdparty providers 932 through the use of a third party required consentprocess 918.

The third party required consent process 918 manages relationshipsbetween third party providers 932 and the software factory 100. Exampleof such third party providers 932 include, but are not limited to, athird party contractor provider 920 (which will provide software codingservices for components of the candidate project 902), a third partyservice provider 922 (which will provide an execution environment forsub-components of the candidate project 902), and vendor product support924 (which provides call-in and/or on-site support for the completedproject). The determination of whether the third party providers 932 andthe software factory 100 can work in partnership on the project is basedon a Yes/No questionnaire that is sent from the software factory 100 tothe third party providers 932. The questionnaire that is sent to thethird party providers 932 includes questions about the third party'sfinancial soundness, experience and capabilities, development andcontrol process (including documentation of work practices), technicalassistance that can be provided by the third party (including availableenhancements), quality practices (including what type of conventions thethird party follows, such as ISO 9001), maintenance service that will beprovided, product usage (including a description of any licensingrestrictions), costs, contracts used, and product warranty.

If the factory project proposal 904 fails this scoring process, it issent back to a remediation process 916. However, if scoring processgives an initial indication that the factory project proposal 904 isready to be sent to the software factory, then it is sent to the serviceinduction process 926.

Once the factory project proposal 904 has gone through the SAR process912 and any third party coordination has been met, scored andclassified, the factory project proposal 904 is then inducted(pre-qualified for approval) by the service induction process 926.During the service induction process 926, the scored and classifiedproject is sent through a Conceptual Requirements Review, which utilizesa service repository scorecard 928 to determine if the software factory100 is able to handle the candidate project 902. That is based on thechecklists, evaluations, scorecards and classifications depicted in FIG.9, the candidate project 902 receives a final evaluation to determinethat the software factory 100 has the requisite resources needed tosuccessfully execute the candidate project 902. If so, then thecandidate project becomes a factory project 930, and a contractagreement is made between the client and the service provider who ownsthe software factory 100.

Dynamic Generation of Software Packets

As described herein, work packets are created in accordance with theclient's needs/capacities. An optimal way to determine what the client'sneeds/capacities are is through the use of checklists. A standardchecklist, however, would be cumbersome, since standard checklists arestatic in nature. Therefore, described now is a process for generatingand utilizing dynamic checklists through the use of a Software FactoryMeta-Morphic Dynamic Restructuring Logic Tree Model. This model providesthe means to expedite checklist data collections, by dynamicallyrestructuring and filtering non-relevant checklist questions, dependingon answers evaluated in real time. Such a model not only enables ameta-data driven morphing of decision tress that adopt to the relevancyof what is deemed an applicable line of questioning, but also provides ahighly flexible solution to pertinent data collection.

As now described, the Software Factory Meta-Morphic DynamicRestructuring Logic Tree Model qualifies answers to checklist questionsto determine if a next checklist is relevant to what is needed todetermine what type of work packets are needed for the client's project.This expedites the data collection and analysis process, and thusprovides a scalable flexibility to data collection and logic decisiontree processing and constructions.

Referring now to FIG. 10 b, a software diagram 1004 shows a relationshipbetween different software objects used to dynamically generatechecklists used to determine what work packets are needed to create adeliverable. Objects 1005 a-d are used to track and receive answers to aparticular checklist, while objects 1007 a-c are used to evaluate eachchecklist to determine if it is relevant to the inquiry needed fordetermining what work packets are needed for a project related to aparticular checklist category.

Referring now to FIG. 10 c, a Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysisand Predictive Forecasting Model 1006, which is an excerpt of a SoftwareFactory data model, shows the relational pattern between areas ofpattern analysis. FIG. 10 d shows a pattern 1012 of relationshipsbetween different assets, project types, templates, schema, tasks andprocesses. These relationships are a by-product of the Software FactoryPacket Pattern Analysis and Predictive Forecasting Model 1006 shown inFIG. 10 c.

To tie together the details shown in FIGS. 10 b-d, a high-levelflow-chart of steps taken to dynamically manage checklists used toselect appropriate work packets in a software factory is presented inFIG. 10 e. After initiator block 1014, which may be prompted by a clientrequesting a deliverable from the software factory, an initial checklistis presented (block 1016). This checklist consists of a series ofquestion groups, which are categorized according to a particular type ofdeliverable. For example, a security software program may be associatedwith a particular checklist category for “security software.” Asdescribed in block 1018, answers to the first group of questions arereceived by the Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis and PredictiveForecasting Model 1006 shown in FIG. 10 c. If the received answersprompt a new series of questions (query block 1020), then a dynamicallygenerated new checklist is created (block 1022). Note that this newchecklist is not merely an existing node in a decision tree. Rather,based on received answers, a new checklist is dynamically created usingstored questions that are tagged and associated with a particular set ofanswers. Thus, if a set of two questions resulted in respective answers“True” and “False”, this would results in a different set of nextquestions than what would be generated if the respective answers were“True” and “True” (or any other combination of answers other than “True”and “False”).

Referring now to block 1024, answers to the new checklist are evaluatedbased on their contextual reference and the nature of the questioningobjectives. That is, based on what question parameters are used for thework packets being generated, a determination can be made as to whetheradditional new checklists need to be constructed (query block 1026). Ifso, then the process returns to block 1022 in an iterative manner. Ifnot, then the process ends (terminator block 1028), indicating that thechecklist process for determining what qualities are needed in the workpackets has concluded.

Referring again to block 1024, note that leading indicator can influencehow answers are evaluated. Such leading indicators include descriptorsof the final deliverable that will be generated by the software factory,a client's name or field, etc. As leading indicators change, they canchange content relevance and perspective reference points and drive therestructuring of relevant questions that can be restructured along thatleading indicator relative perspective.

As thus described, for every answer collected by a question posed on achecklist and the scope of the question, all answers are evaluated forrelevancy (scope, project type and contextual reference etc.). If aquestion becomes irrelevant, then that question is filtered and notasked in future questionnaires having a similar context. This provides ahighly flexible solution for essential pertinent data collection. Thatis, the line of questioning and the decision tree changes with each newiteration (thus creating a dynamic logic tree that restructures itself,depending on how it used by maintaining a contextual reference base).Like water reforming into a drop, no matter how many times and in whatmanner a set of questions is parsed into segments, the set of questionsreforms its remnants into a new wholly formed structure.

Software Factory Health Maintenance

The software factory described herein should be monitored for a varietyof issues. Such monitoring is performed by a Software Factory Analyticsand Dashboard, which ensures that both a single instance and multipleinstances of the Factory can function smoothly. The monitored metricsinclude project metrics as well as factory operations, system, business,and performance activities. The analytics of the overall health of thefactory can be audited and monitored and used as a basis for continualprocess improvement strategic analysis and planning. This ensuresfungibility and consistency, provides quality assurance, reduces therisk of failure, and increases cost effectiveness.

The health of the software factory is monitored through messages on anEnterprise Service Bus (ESB), which is a bus that is that couples theendpoint processes of the software factory with dashboard monitors. AnESB provides a standard-based integration platform that combinesmessaging, web services, data transformation and intelligent routing inan event driven Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). In an ESB-enabled,event-driven SOA, applications and services are treated as abstractendpoints, which can readily respond to asynchronous events. The SOAprovides an abstraction away from the details of the underlyingconnectivity and plumbing. The implementations of the services do notneed to understand protocols. Services do not need to know how messagesare routed to other services. They simply receive a message from the ESBas an event, and process the message. Process flow in an ESB can alsoinvolve specialized integration services that perform intelligentrouting of messages based on content. Because the process flow is builton top on of the distributed SOA, it is also capable of spanning highlydistributed deployment topologies between services on the bus.

As stated above, the messages that flow on the ESB contain measurablemetrics and states that are received through an event driven ServiceOriented Architecture (SOA) Model. This information is via XML datastream messages, which can contain factory operation, system, businessand performance and activity related metrics, which provide a relativepoint of origin for low level measurement. The messages can be used inanalytics of the factory's overall health, which is audited andmonitored, and can be used as a basis for continual process improvementstrategic analysis and planning. Upon update, the data stream isanalyzed and the aggregated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) arecalculated and sent to the dashboard display device, where the XML isapplied to a style template and rendered for display.

The Health Monitoring System provides factory exception and errorreporting, system monitoring, Performance Monitoring and Reporting,Proactive and Reactive Alert Notification, Message Auditing and TrackingReporting, Daily View of Activity, and Historical Reports. Informationcollected includes what information (regarding the software factorymetrics) was sent, to whom it was sent, when it was sent, and how manymessages were sent via the ESB interface between the software factoryand the client's system.

Information in the messages includes timestamps for the sender (from thesoftware factory), the receiver (in the analytic section), and the hub(the ESB). Derived metrics include:

What Service Requestor and Provider are Most Problematic?

Re-factoring

Redesign

Quality Analysis Improvement

Detail Review

Review of Error Strategy

What Requestor and Provider are Most Active?

Quantitative Analysis

Forecast Trends and Budgeting

Strategic Analysis and Planning

Market Analysis and Planning

How Long It Took to Process

Resource Realignment

Capacity Planning

What Requestor and Provider are Least Active?

Optimization and Re-factoring

Redesign

Realignment of Strategic and Marketing Planning

Capacity Planning Realignment

Governance—Metrics

Compliance—reporting responsibility, procedural and policy execution,

Continual Process Improvement

Comparative analysis against baseline and performance objectives.

Factory Contractual Analysis

Financial—Profitability

-   -   Increase Revenue    -   Lower Costs        Design Center—Metrics

Asset Type Creation Analysis per project type

When (date/time) Work Packets Definitions are created by project

Work Packet creation Rate

Work Packet to Project Type Pattern Analysis

Design Compliance (Execution Units), Asset/Artifact Reuse

Design Solution Pattern Analysis per Work Packet Type

Asset Management—Metrics

Asset Repository Growth Rate

Asset Repository Mix

Asset Reuse Rate

Project Asset Usage Patterns

Project—Metrics

Project Proposal Induction Attempt/Success Ratio

Factory Project Client/Industry Analysis

Resource Availability, Activity and Tasks Status

Milestone Achievement Rate/Status

Schedule Analysis

Budget/Cost Analysis

Risk Identification

Issue Tracking

Defect Tracking Resolution, Project Asset Usage Patterns

Intelligent Forecaster

Factory Operations—Metrics

Approved Project Pipeline

-   -   Project Throughput Rate Analysis    -   Informational Analysis    -   Work Packet Distribution Analysis    -   Capacity Planning (Forecast/Logistics/Availability)    -   Resource Inventory Levels    -   Factory Utilization Rate    -   Workload Characterization    -   Transactional Analysis    -   Performance Analysis Distribution    -   Traffic Analysis    -   Equipment and facilities    -   Headcount and human resources data applied to physical resources    -   Worker Turnover Rate    -   Labor Analysis (hours, overtime, per type of factory worker)    -   Process technologies used    -   Production volumes    -   Factory Operation Trouble Ticket/Problem Resolution (e.g.        internal factory operations (infrastructure) maintenance)        Factory Financials—Metrics

Revenue per project

Operational Costs per Project

-   -   Fixed    -   Variable

Profit per Project

Profit per Project Type

System Engineering Analysis

System Engineering—Project Risks

System Engineering—Software Defects

System Engineering—Issue Tracking and Resolution

SEAT Review Scorecards Results

-   -   CRR—Conceptual Requirements Review    -   BRR—Business Requirements Review    -   SRR—System Requirements Review    -   PDR—Preliminary Design Review    -   CDR—Critical Design Review    -   TRR—Test Readiness Review    -   PRR—Production Readiness Review    -   FRR—Factory Readiness Review

Quality Assurance Cause Effect Correlation Analysis

Execution Units—Metrics

Work Packet Consumption Rate

-   -   Start (date/time) Work Packet Execution    -   Finish (date/time) Work Packet Execution

# Cross Trained Execution Unit Workers

Availability Rate

Quality Rating per Worker

Referring now to FIG. 11, an environment for Software Factory Analyticsand Dashboard is presented in a software factory 100. Note that threeexemplary service endpoints 1102 a-c are depicted. Service endpoint 1102a provides analytic service for measurements taken in the softwarefactor 100. Service endpoint 1102 b provides an audit service, whichdetermines which analytic measurements should be taken. Service endpoint1102 c provides a web service that affords analytic measurements anddashboards to be transmitted in HTML or other web-based format to amonitor. Details of a service endpoint include the application (servicesoftware) 1104, an application interface 1106, a resource adapter 1108,a managed connection 1110, a client interface 1112, an ESB endpoint1114, an invocation and management framework 1116 (protocol stacks thatcan be sued for transporting messages across an ESB), and a servicecontainer 1118 (an operating system process that can be managed by theinvocation and management framework 1116).

Each service endpoint 1102 is coupled to the Enterprise Service Bus(ESB) 1120, to which XML message 1122 (or similar markup languageformatted messages) can flow to governance monitors 1124, factoryoperations monitors 1126 and/or system engineering monitors 1128, onwhich the messages generate dashboard progress messages.

With reference now to FIG. 12, a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken tomonitor the health of a software factory is presented. After initiatorblock 1202 (which may be prompted by the acceptance of a work project asdescribed above), work packets are first defined (block 1204). Asdescribed above, these work packets are then sent to the assembly area.This transmittal is tracked (block 1206) by sending a message 1122 tothe ESB 1120 shown in FIG. 11. This message 1122 contains informationabout where and when the work packet was sent to the assembly line. Ifthe work packet pulls an artifact (such as artifacts 404 described inFIG. 4), another message is sent to the ESB for tracking purposes (block1208). Similarly, messages are sent to the ESB if there are any on-goingchanges of work activities contained in the work packets (block 1210).Execution of the work packets is monitored to ensure that such executionconforms with governance guidelines that have been previously set forthe software factory (block 1212). Similarly, the software factory ismonitored to ensure that work packets comply with the architecture ofthe software factory (block 1214).

Quality metrics are also monitored for the execution of the work packetsin the assembly line area (block 1216). That is, as different workpackets are executed, assembled and tested in the assembly line area,the quality of such operations is tracked. These metrics include, butare not limited to, those described above, plus completion rates,detection of software defects, hazards (risks) caused by the executionof the work packets and other issues. This information (and optionallyany other information monitored and tracked in block 1206 to 1214) issent on the ESB to a dashboard in a monitoring display, as described inFIG. 11 above.

With reference now to FIG. 13, there is depicted a block diagram of anexemplary client computer 1302, in which the present invention may beutilized. Note that some or all of the exemplary architecture shown forclient computer 1302 may be utilized by software deploying server 1350,as well as monitors 1124, 1126 and 1128 shown in FIG. 11.

Client computer 1302 includes a processor unit 1304 that is coupled to asystem bus 1306. A video adapter 1308, which drives/supports a display1310, is also coupled to system bus 1306. System bus 1306 is coupled viaa bus bridge 1312 to an Input/Output (I/O) bus 1314. An I/O interface1316 is coupled to I/O bus 1314. I/O interface 1316 affordscommunication with various I/O devices, including a keyboard 1318, amouse 1320, a Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) drive 1322, afloppy disk drive 1324, and a flash drive memory 1326. The format of theports connected to I/O interface 1316 may be any known to those skilledin the art of computer architecture, including but not limited toUniversal Serial Bus (USB) ports.

Client computer 1302 is able to communicate with a software deployingserver 1350 via a network 1328 using a network interface 1330, which iscoupled to system bus 1306. Network interface 1330 may include anEnterprise Service Bus (not shown), such as ESB 1120 shown in FIG. 11.Network 1328 may be an external network such as the Internet, or aninternal network such as an Ethernet or a Virtual Private Network (VPN).Note the software deploying server 1350 may utilize a same orsubstantially similar architecture as client computer 1302.

A hard drive interface 1332 is also coupled to system bus 1306. Harddrive interface 1332 interfaces with a hard drive 1334. In a preferredembodiment, hard drive 1334 populates a system memory 1336, which isalso coupled to system bus 1306. System memory is defined as a lowestlevel of volatile memory in client computer 1302. This volatile memoryincludes additional higher levels of volatile memory (not shown),including, but not limited to, cache memory, registers and buffers. Datathat populates system memory 1336 includes client computer 1302'soperating system (OS) 1338 and application programs 1344.

OS 1338 includes a shell 1340, for providing transparent user access toresources such as application programs 1344. Generally, shell 1340 is aprogram that provides an interpreter and an interface between the userand the operating system. More specifically, shell 1340 executescommands that are entered into a command line user interface or from afile. Thus, shell 1340 (as it is called in UNIX®), also called a commandprocessor in Windows®, is generally the highest level of the operatingsystem software hierarchy and serves as a command interpreter. The shellprovides a system prompt, interprets commands entered by keyboard,mouse, or other user input media, and sends the interpreted command(s)to the appropriate lower levels of the operating system (e.g., a kernel1342) for processing. Note that while shell 1340 is a text-based,line-oriented user interface, the present invention will equally wellsupport other user interface modes, such as graphical, voice, gestural,etc.

As depicted, OS 1338 also includes kernel 1342, which includes lowerlevels of functionality for OS 1338, including providing essentialservices required by other parts of OS 1338 and application programs1344, including memory management, process and task management, diskmanagement, and mouse and keyboard management.

Application programs 1344 include a browser 1346. Browser 1346 includesprogram modules and instructions enabling a World Wide Web (WWW) client(i.e., client computer 1302) to send and receive network messages to theInternet using HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) messaging, thusenabling communication with software deploying server 1350.

Application programs 1344 in client computer 1302's system memory (aswell as software deploying server 1350's system memory) also include aSoftware Factory Program (SFP) 1348. SFP 1348 includes code forimplementing the processes described in FIGS. 1-12 and 14 a-15 b. In oneembodiment, client computer 1302 is able to download SFP 1348 fromsoftware deploying server 1350.

The hardware elements depicted in client computer 1302 are not intendedto be exhaustive, but rather are representative to highlight essentialcomponents required by the present invention. For instance, clientcomputer 1302 may include alternate memory storage devices such asmagnetic cassettes, Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs), Bernoullicartridges, and the like. These and other variations are intended to bewithin the spirit and scope of the present invention.

Note further that, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention,software deploying server 1350 performs all of the functions associatedwith the present invention (including execution of SFP 1348), thusfreeing client computer 1302 from having to use its own internalcomputing resources to execute SFP 1348.

It should be understood that at least some aspects of the presentinvention may alternatively be implemented in a computer-readable mediumthat contains a program product. Programs defining functions of thepresent invention can be delivered to a data storage system or acomputer system via a variety of tangible signal-bearing media, whichinclude, without limitation, non-writable storage media (e.g., CD-ROM),writable storage media (e.g., hard disk drive, read/write CD ROM,optical media), as well as non-tangible communication media, such ascomputer and telephone networks including Ethernet, the Internet,wireless networks, and like network systems. It should be understood,therefore, that such signal-bearing media when carrying or encodingcomputer readable instructions that direct method functions in thepresent invention, represent alternative embodiments of the presentinvention. Further, it is understood that the present invention may beimplemented by a system having means in the form of hardware, software,or a combination of software and hardware as described herein or theirequivalent.

Software Deployment

As described above, in one embodiment, the processes described by thepresent invention, including the functions of SFP 1348, are performed byservice provider server 1350. Alternatively, SFP 1348 and the methoddescribed herein, and in particular as shown and described in FIGS.1-12, can be deployed as a process software from service provider server1350 to client computer 1302. Still more particularly, process softwarefor the method so described may be deployed to service provider server1350 by another service provider server (not shown).

Referring then to FIGS. 14A-B, step 1400 begins the deployment of theprocess software. The first thing is to determine if there are anyprograms that will reside on a server or servers when the processsoftware is executed (query block 1402). If this is the case, then theservers that will contain the executables are identified (block 1404).The process software for the server or servers is transferred directlyto the servers' storage via File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or some otherprotocol or by copying though the use of a shared file system (block1406). The process software is then installed on the servers (block1408).

Next, a determination is made on whether the process software is to bedeployed by having users access the process software on a server orservers (query block 1410). If the users are to access the processsoftware on servers, then the server addresses that will store theprocess software are identified (block 1412).

A determination is made if a proxy server is to be built (query block1414) to store the process software. A proxy server is a server thatsits between a client application, such as a Web browser, and a realserver. It intercepts all requests to the real server to see if it canfulfill the requests itself. If not, it forwards the request to the realserver. The two primary benefits of a proxy server are to improveperformance and to filter requests. If a proxy server is required, thenthe proxy server is installed (block 1416). The process software is sentto the servers either via a protocol such as FTP or it is copieddirectly from the source files to the server files via file sharing(block 1418). Another embodiment would be to send a transaction to theservers that contained the process software and have the server processthe transaction, then receive and copy the process software to theserver's file system. Once the process software is stored at theservers, the users, via their client computers, then access the processsoftware on the servers and copy to their client computers file systems(block 1420). Another embodiment is to have the servers automaticallycopy the process software to each client and then run the installationprogram for the process software at each client computer. The userexecutes the program that installs the process software on his clientcomputer (block 1422) then exits the process (terminator block 1424).

In query step 1426, a determination is made whether the process softwareis to be deployed by sending the process software to users via e-mail.The set of users where the process software will be deployed areidentified together with the addresses of the user client computers(block 1428). The process software is sent via e-mail to each of theusers' client computers (block 1430). The users then receive the e-mail(block 1432) and then detach the process software from the e-mail to adirectory on their client computers (block 1434). The user executes theprogram that installs the process software on his client computer (block1422) then exits the process (terminator block 1424).

Lastly a determination is made as to whether the process software willbe sent directly to user directories on their client computers (queryblock 1436). If so, the user directories are identified (block 1438).The process software is transferred directly to the user's clientcomputer directory (block 1440). This can be done in several ways suchas but not limited to sharing of the file system directories and thencopying from the sender's file system to the recipient user's filesystem or alternatively using a transfer protocol such as File TransferProtocol (FTP). The users access the directories on their client filesystems in preparation for installing the process software (block 1442).The user executes the program that installs the process software on hisclient computer (block 1422) and then exits the process (terminatorblock 1424).

VPN Deployment

The present software can be deployed to third parties as part of aservice wherein a third party VPN service is offered as a securedeployment vehicle or wherein a VPN is build on-demand as required for aspecific deployment.

A virtual private network (VPN) is any combination of technologies thatcan be used to secure a connection through an otherwise unsecured oruntrusted network. VPNs improve security and reduce operational costs.The VPN makes use of a public network, usually the Internet, to connectremote sites or users together. Instead of using a dedicated, real-worldconnection such as leased line, the VPN uses “virtual” connectionsrouted through the Internet from the company's private network to theremote site or employee. Access to the software via a VPN can beprovided as a service by specifically constructing the VPN for purposesof delivery or execution of the process software (i.e. the softwareresides elsewhere) wherein the lifetime of the VPN is limited to a givenperiod of time or a given number of deployments based on an amount paid.

The process software may be deployed, accessed and executed througheither a remote-access or a site-to-site VPN. When using theremote-access VPNs the process software is deployed, accessed andexecuted via the secure, encrypted connections between a company'sprivate network and remote users through a third-party service provider.The enterprise service provider (ESP) sets a network access server (NAS)and provides the remote users with desktop client software for theircomputers. The telecommuters can then dial a toll-free number or attachdirectly via a cable or DSL modem to reach the NAS and use their VPNclient software to access the corporate network and to access, downloadand execute the process software.

When using the site-to-site VPN, the process software is deployed,accessed and executed through the use of dedicated equipment andlarge-scale encryption that are used to connect a company's multiplefixed sites over a public network such as the Internet.

The process software is transported over the VPN via tunneling which isthe process of placing an entire packet within another packet andsending it over a network. The protocol of the outer packet isunderstood by the network and both points, called tunnel interfaces,where the packet enters and exits the network.

Software Integration

The process software which consists of code for implementing the processdescribed herein may be integrated into a client, server and networkenvironment by providing for the process software to coexist withapplications, operating systems and network operating systems softwareand then installing the process software on the clients and servers inthe environment where the process software will function.

The first step is to identify any software on the clients and servers,including the network operating system where the process software willbe deployed, that are required by the process software or that work inconjunction with the process software. This includes the networkoperating system that is software that enhances a basic operating systemby adding networking features.

Next, the software applications and version numbers will be identifiedand compared to the list of software applications and version numbersthat have been tested to work with the process software. Those softwareapplications that are missing or that do not match the correct versionwill be upgraded with the correct version numbers. Program instructionsthat pass parameters from the process software to the softwareapplications will be checked to ensure the parameter lists match theparameter lists required by the process software. Conversely parameterspassed by the software applications to the process software will bechecked to ensure the parameters match the parameters required by theprocess software. The client and server operating systems including thenetwork operating systems will be identified and compared to the list ofoperating systems, version numbers and network software that have beentested to work with the process software. Those operating systems,version numbers and network software that do not match the list oftested operating systems and version numbers will be upgraded on theclients and servers to the required level.

After ensuring that the software, where the process software is to bedeployed, is at the correct version level that has been tested to workwith the process software, the integration is completed by installingthe process software on the clients and servers.

On Demand

The process software is shared, simultaneously serving multiplecustomers in a flexible, automated fashion. It is standardized,requiring little customization and it is scalable, providing capacity ondemand in a pay-as-you-go model.

The process software can be stored on a shared file system accessiblefrom one or more servers. The process software is executed viatransactions that contain data and server processing requests that useCPU units on the accessed server. CPU units are units of time such asminutes, seconds, hours on the central processor of the server.Additionally the accessed server may make requests of other servers thatrequire CPU units. CPU units describe an example that represents but onemeasurement of use. Other measurements of use include but are notlimited to network bandwidth, memory utilization, storage utilization,packet transfers, complete transactions etc.

When multiple customers use the same process software application, theirtransactions are differentiated by the parameters included in thetransactions that identify the unique customer and the type of servicefor that customer. All of the CPU units and other measurements of usethat are used for the services for each customer are recorded. When thenumber of transactions to any one server reaches a number that begins toaffect the performance of that server, other servers are accessed toincrease the capacity and to share the workload. Likewise when othermeasurements of use such as network bandwidth, memory utilization,storage utilization, etc. approach a capacity so as to affectperformance, additional network bandwidth, memory utilization, storageetc. are added to share the workload.

The measurements of use used for each service and customer are sent to acollecting server that sums the measurements of use for each customerfor each service that was processed anywhere in the network of serversthat provide the shared execution of the process software. The summedmeasurements of use units are periodically multiplied by unit costs andthe resulting total process software application service costs arealternatively sent to the customer and/or indicated on a web siteaccessed by the customer which then remits payment to the serviceprovider.

In another embodiment, the service provider requests payment directlyfrom a customer account at a banking or financial institution.

In another embodiment, if the service provider is also a customer of thecustomer that uses the process software application, the payment owed tothe service provider is reconciled to the payment owed by the serviceprovider to minimize the transfer of payments.

With reference now to FIGS. 15 a-b, initiator block 1502 begins the OnDemand process. A transaction is created than contains the uniquecustomer identification, the requested service type and any serviceparameters that further, specify the type of service (block 1504). Thetransaction is then sent to the main server (block 1506). In an OnDemand environment the main server can initially be the only server,then as capacity is consumed other servers are added to the On Demandenvironment.

The server central processing unit (CPU) capacities in the On Demandenvironment are queried (block 1508). The CPU requirement of thetransaction is estimated, then the server's available CPU capacity inthe On Demand environment are compared to the transaction CPUrequirement to see if there is sufficient CPU available capacity in anyserver to process the transaction (query block 1510). If there is notsufficient server CPU available capacity, then additional server CPUcapacity is allocated to process the transaction (block 1512). If therewas already sufficient available CPU capacity then the transaction issent to a selected server (block 1514).

Before executing the transaction, a check is made of the remaining OnDemand environment to determine if the environment has sufficientavailable capacity for processing the transaction. This environmentcapacity consists of such things as but not limited to networkbandwidth, processor memory, storage etc. (block 1516). If there is notsufficient available capacity, then capacity will be added to the OnDemand environment (block 1518). Next the required software to processthe transaction is accessed, loaded into memory, then the transaction isexecuted (block 1520).

The usage measurements are recorded (block 1522). The utilizationmeasurements consist of the portions of those functions in the On Demandenvironment that are used to process the transaction. The usage of suchfunctions as, but not limited to, network bandwidth, processor memory,storage and CPU cycles are what is recorded. The usage measurements aresummed, multiplied by unit costs and then recorded as a charge to therequesting customer (block 1524).

If the customer has requested that the On Demand costs be posted to aweb site (query block 1526), then they are posted (block 1528). If thecustomer has requested that the On Demand costs be sent via e-mail to acustomer address (query block 1530), then these costs are sent to thecustomer (block 1532). If the customer has requested that the On Demandcosts be paid directly from a customer account (query block 1534), thenpayment is received directly from the customer account (block 1536). TheOn Demand process is then exited at terminator block 1538.

As described herein, the present invention provides acomputer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium fordetermining if a software factory is ready to take on a softwareproject. In a preferred embodiment, the computer-implemented methodincludes the steps of: determining if an infrastructure for a softwarefactory has been procured; determining if operational software needed toassemble work packets in an assembly line in the software factory hasbeen installed; determining if a workflow event model for an assemblyline in the software factory has been configured; determining ifworkload in the assembly line has been balanced; determining ifcommunication channels between the software factory and a customer'scomputer system have been defined and cleared for data transmission; andin response to determining that any element described above has beendetermined not to have occurred, prohibiting an induction of a softwareproject into the software factory. Preferably, these steps are performedin a software factory, which includes the components of a softwarefactory governance section that evaluates the project proposal foracceptance by the software factory; a design center composed of arequirements analysis team and an architecture team, wherein the designcenter sections the project proposal into major functional areas thatare to be handled by the requirements analysis team and the architectureteam, and wherein the design center creates the work packets; and anassembly line that receives and executes the work packets to create thedeliverable custom software.

In one embodiment, the design center includes: a requirements analysisteam, wherein the requirements analysis team is responsible fordetermining system requirements for executing the deliverable customsoftware on the customer's system; and an architectural team, whereinthe architectural team models the project proposal in accordance withcustomer constraints, and wherein the architectural team bundles thecustomer constraints together with the work packets for execution in theassembly line.

In one embodiment, the work packets include governance procedures,standards, reused assets, work packet instructions, integrationstrategy, schedules, exit criteria and artifact checklist templates forInput/Output routines.

The assembly line in the software factory may include software thatautomatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, andwherein the assembly line assembles the work packets into thedeliverable custom software in accordance with the project type that isrecognized by the assembly line. In a preferred embodiment, the assemblyline conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integrationtest and a performance test of the deliverable custom software, whereinthe integration test tests the deliverable custom software forcompatibility with the client's system, the system test checks theclient's system to ensure that the client's system is operatingproperly, the system integration test tests for bugs that may arise whenthe deliverable custom software is integrated into the client's system,and the performance test tests the deliverable custom software fordefects as it is executing in the client's system.

In one embodiment, the assembly line includes a published set ofservices and a published set of requirements for the assembly line,wherein the published set of services and the published set ofrequirements for the assembly line are published to the design center,and wherein the published set of services describes what assemblyservices for assembling work packets are offered by the assembly line,and wherein the published set of requirements describes what executionenvironment must be used by work packets that are provided by the designcenter for assembly in the assembly line.

While the present invention has been particularly shown and describedwith reference to a preferred embodiment, it will be understood by thoseskilled in the art that various changes in form and detail may be madetherein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.For example, while the present description has been directed to apreferred embodiment in which custom software applications aredeveloped, the invention disclosed herein is equally applicable to thedevelopment and modification of application software. Furthermore, asused in the specification and the appended claims, the term “computer”or “system” or “computer system” or “computing device” includes any dataprocessing system including, but not limited to, personal computers,servers, workstations, network computers, main frame computers, routers,switches, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA's), telephones, and any othersystem capable of processing, transmitting, receiving, capturing and/orstoring data.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method for deliveringcustom software, comprising: a computer processor executing a softwarefactory program to implement a software factory including a softwarefactory governance section, a design center, and an assembly line, andwherein the executing includes: in response to the software factoryreceiving a software project proposal including a custom softwaredescription describing a specific project type of the software project,the software factory governance section determining, whether thesoftware project proposal is qualified for acceptance by the softwarefactory, utilizing a scorecard for the specific project type, whereinthe scorecard provides a maturity assessment of resources required andidentifies any potential choke-points for the specific project type, andwherein the software factory governance section determines that thesoftware project proposal is qualified for acceptance in response to theresources required being available and no potential choke-points beingidentified; and in response to a determination that the software projectproposal is qualified for acceptance by the software factory, thesoftware factory undertaking the software project proposal by: thedesign center creating a plurality of work packets for the softwareproject proposal, wherein each of the plurality of work packets isassociated with a functional area of the custom software and comprisessoftware code and operating instructions; the assembly line receivingand executing the plurality of work packets to obtain deliverablesoftware; and delivering the deliverable software to a customer, whereinthe assembly line automatically recognizes a project type for thesoftware project proposal.
 2. The computer-implemented method of claim1, and further comprising: the assembly line publishing a published setof services and a published set of requirements for the assembly line tothe design center, wherein the published set of services describes whatassembly services for assembling work packets are offered by theassembly line, and wherein the published set of requirements describeswhat execution environment must be used by work packets that areprovided by the design center for assembly in the assembly line.
 3. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the work packets includegovernance procedures, standards, reused assets, work packetinstructions, integration strategy, schedules, exit criteria andartifact checklist templates for Input/Output routines.
 4. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 1, and further comprising: whereinthe assembly line executes the plurality of work packets to obtain thedeliverable software in accordance with the project type recognized bythe assembly line.
 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, andfurther comprising: the assembly line conducting one or more of anintegration test, a system test, a system integration test and aperformance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integrationtest tests the deliverable software for compatibility with a client'ssystem, the system test checks the client's system to ensure that theclient's system is operating properly, the system integration test testsfor bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated intothe client's system, and the performance test tests the deliverablesoftware for defects as it is executing in the client's system.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, wherein: the design center includes: a requirementsanalysis component that determines system requirements for executing thedeliverable software on a customer's system; and an architecturalcomponent that models the software project proposal in accordance withcustomer constraints and bundles the customer constraints together withthe work packets for execution in the assembly line; and the softwarefactory undertaking the software project proposal includes the designcenter sectioning the software project proposal into major functionalareas that are to be handled by the requirements analysis component andthe architectural component.
 7. A system, comprising: a processor; adata bus coupled to the processor; and a data storage device coupled tothe data bus, wherein the data storage device stores a software factoryprogram including instructions executable by the processor andconfigured to deliver custom software by causing the processor to:implement a software factory including a software factory governancesection, a design center, and an assembly line; in response to receiptof a software project proposal including a custom software descriptiondescribing a specific project type of the software project, determine,by the software factory governance section whether the software projectproposal is qualified for acceptance by the software factory, utilizinga scorecard for the specific project type, wherein the scorecardprovides a maturity assessment of resources required and identifies anypotential choke-points for the specific project type, and wherein thesoftware factory governance section determines that the software projectproposal is qualified for acceptance in response to the resourcesrequired being available and no potential choke-points being identified;and in response to a determination that the software project proposal isqualified for acceptance by the software factory, undertake the softwareproject proposal by: the design center creating a plurality of workpackets for the software project proposal, wherein each of the pluralityof work packets is associated with a functional area of the customsoftware and comprises software code and operating instructions; theassembly line receiving and executing the plurality of work packets toobtain deliverable software; and delivering the deliverable software toa customer, wherein the assembly line automatically recognizes a projecttype for the software project proposal.
 8. The system of claim 7,wherein: the design center further comprises: a requirements analysiscomponent that determines system requirements for executing thedeliverable software on a customer's system; and an architecturalcomponent that models the software project proposal in accordance withcustomer constraints and bundles the customer constraints together withthe work packets for execution in the assembly line; and the designcenter sections the software project proposal into major functionalareas that are to be handled by the requirements analysis component andby the architectural component.
 9. The system of claim 7, wherein thework packets include governance procedures, standards, reused assets,work packet instructions, integration strategy, schedules, exit criteriaand artifact checklist templates for Input/Output routines.
 10. Thesystem of claim 7, wherein the assembly line executes the plurality ofwork packets to obtain the deliverable software in accordance with theproject type that is recognized by the assembly line.
 11. The system ofclaim 7, wherein the assembly line conducts one or more of anintegration test, a system test, a system integration test and aperformance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integrationtest tests the deliverable software for compatibility with a client'ssystem, the system test checks the client's system to ensure that theclient's system is operating properly, the system integration test testsfor bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated intothe client's system, and the performance test tests the deliverablesoftware for defects as it is executing in the client's system.
 12. Anarticle of manufacture, comprising: a tangible computer-readable memory;computer-readable code stored in the tangible computer-readable memory,the computer-readable code including instructions executable by aprocessor and configured to: implement a software factory including asoftware factory governance section, a design center, and an assemblyline; in response to receipt of a software project proposal including acustom software description describing a specific project type of thesoftware project, determine, by the software factory governance sectionwhether the software project proposal is qualified for acceptance by thesoftware factory, utilizing a scorecard for the specific project type,wherein the scorecard provides a maturity assessment of resourcesrequired and identifies any potential choke-points for the specificproject type, and wherein the software factory governance sectiondetermines that the software project proposal is qualified foracceptance in response to the resources required being available and nopotential choke-points being identified; and in response to adetermination that the software project proposal is qualified foracceptance by the software factory, undertake the software projectproposal by: the design center creating a plurality of work packets forthe software project proposal, wherein each of the plurality of workpackets is associated with a functional area of the custom software andcomprises software code and operating instructions; the assembly linereceiving and executing the plurality of work packets to obtaindeliverable software; and delivering the deliverable software to acustomer, wherein the assembly line automatically recognizes a projecttype for the software project proposal.
 13. The article of manufactureof claim 12, wherein: the design center further comprises: arequirements analysis component that determines system requirements forexecuting the deliverable software on a customer's system; and anarchitectural component that models the software project proposal inaccordance with customer constraints and bundles the customerconstraints together with the work packets for execution in the assemblyline; and the design center sections the software project proposal intomajor functional areas that are to be handled by the requirementsanalysis component and by the architectural component.
 14. The articleof manufacture of claim 12, wherein the work packets include governanceprocedures, standards, reused assets, work packet instructions,integration strategy, schedules, exit criteria and artifact checklisttemplates for Input/Output routines.
 15. The article of manufacture ofclaim 12, wherein the assembly line executes the plurality of workpackets to obtain the deliverable software in accordance with theproject type that is recognized by the assembly line.
 16. The article ofmanufacture of claim 12, wherein the assembly line conducts anintegration test, a system test, a system integration test and aperformance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integrationtest tests the deliverable software for compatibility with a client'ssystem, the system test checks the client's system to ensure that theclient's system is operating properly, the system integration test testsfor bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated intothe client's system, and the performance test tests the deliverablesoftware for defects as it is executing in the client's system.
 17. Thearticle of manufacture of claim 12, wherein the tangiblecomputer-readable memory is a component of a remote server, and whereinthe computer executable instructions are deployable to a supervisorycomputer from the remote server.
 18. The article of manufacture of claim12, wherein the computer executable instructions are capable of beingprovided by a service provider to the customer on an on-demand basis.